Valenzuela Rizel Romallosa v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1654/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1654 of 2023

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 18 September 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 11 September 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as the proposed respondent and also the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 22 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant came from the Philippines to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper. She remained in Hong Kong notwithstanding the termination of her employment. She claimed that she will be seriously harmed or killed by her husband (the “Husband”) if she were to return to the Philippines because the Husband found out that she had an affair in Hong Kong.

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.The proposed grounds of review are set out in the Form 86. These complaints are based on a generic template. These are not effective grounds as there is no elaboration as to the circumstances in which the alleged errors of the Board were said to have been made and how they were material to her claim. As an illustration, the Applicant complained in §10 of her grounds of review that the Board had relied upon outdated cases without identifying what these cases are. On this account, leave should be refused.

9.At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that she had nothing else to add to her application.

10.In any event, I have considered the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had, in its deliberation, failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters when considering the Applicant’s claim.

11.I am also satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, given that:-

(1)  On the Applicant’s case, the Husband has not taken any action to remove their children from the family, despite the Applicant’s claim of his intention to do so (§48).

(2)  There is no credible evidence that the Husband would have any capability to influence or procure the New People’s Army (which appears to be a militant group) to hurt the Applicant’s family. At most, the Applicant was able to point to a single incident in 2013 where shots were fired near her mother’s home (§49).

(3)  There is no credible evidence that the murder of the Applicant’s father was in any way instigated by the Husband (§50).

12.In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

13.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 24^th day of September 2026

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1